Functional Resume instead of Chronological?

bridgestone

I've gathered a fair bit of experience now. I'd say I have solid skills on Windows server (2K3, 8, now 12), Citrix, RDS as well as several enterprise level products/appliances across antivirus solutions, email and others.

So I'm starting to think if now is the time to open my resume with a functional layout, showing no. of years experience/no. of workplaces where experience was gained.

I've seen this style of resume occasionally (especially from seasoned contractors) and I think it can look killer, because it is so similar to a requirement list on a job specification in an ad. Heck, it could even be re-ordered on a per job basis. And instantly gives the hirer/recruiter a snapshot of your skillset rather than having to work it out from your experience.


What do you all think of such a resume? Does anyone use one? Have you had a lot of success with it?

srabiee

Can you post an example? I'm not quite sure what format you are referring to.

bridgestone

Don't have any examples here but it basically opens with a skills summary with a skill on each row (almost like a table) followed by no. of years experience. For example:

Windows Server 5 yrs (2003 R2, 2008R2)
Active Directory 3 yrs
DNS 2 yrs
Citrix XenApp 1 yr (up to v6.5)
RDS 1 yr
Linux 2 yrs (CentOS)
SAN 2 yrs (HP & Dell)
VMWare 3 yrs (up to v5.1)

The above could be presented a bit bitter (mixing years experience and versions is a bit messy, for example)


It still has to be followed by a chronological experience listing but the key skills are listed at the top of the resume, before anything else. It can even remove the requirement to list them further below and one can concentrate on achievements, thus overcoming one of the drawbacks of an achievement-based resume.

I'm strongly considering going with this. I worked with a guy who had a CV like this and he had no problems getting work, even though he was a terrible employee!


edit: here are some examples. Yes, there are other BIG mistakes in these resumes but some of them do the functional aspect quite well. I think this really suits those sysadmin roles where they want a variety of skills e.g. MSPs:


http://www.expertech.ca/resources/Systems%20Administrator%20Resume.doc
http://www.newagesoft.com/Clients/Available-Candidates/Cisco-Engineer/1/Cisco-Resume

srabiee

Both of those resumes are hideous IMO. I wouldn't put too much faith in resumes that look like they were sponsored by NASCAR.

As far as listing skills and the number of years proficiency, those are the type of questions that are generally discussed and answered during the interview process. I don't really see the benefit of listing that outright on a resume like this. Might actually hurt more than it can help.

bridgestone

srabiee wrote: »

Both of those resumes are hideous IMO. I wouldn't put too much faith in resumes that look like they were sponsored by NASCAR.

Yes, and I said I was only talking about the functional part, two quick examples googled for demonstrative effect. I agree the rest of the resumes are hideous but it doesn't change my general point.

srabiee wrote: »

As far as listing skills and the number of years proficiency, those are the type of questions that are generally discussed and answered during the interview process. I don't really see the benefit of listing that outright on a resume like this. Might actually hurt more than it can help.

I think you're missing the point somewhat. Resumes are a hurdle, a screening process and more. If you don't get the interview, then you'll never get the chance to answer such questions. And if a functional layout can increase your chances of getting that interview, then they're worth doing.


Let's say a job ad has a list of requirements, bulleted that looks like this:



System administrator with 2 to 5 years experience.

Required skills:

- Server 2008 R2
- Exchange 2010
- XenApp 6.5

Preferred:

- RDS
- Lync 2010



If your resume starts out with a skills listing:


- Server 2008 R2 (4 yrs)
- Exchange 2010 (3 yrs)
- XenApp 6.5 (2 yrs)

Preferred:

- RDS (3 yrs)
- Lync 2010 (2 yrs)



then you've immediately answered their dreams and pretty much guaranteed yourself an interview.

Russell77

To add to what bridgestone posted, I was in a job search seminar because I was part of a group layoff due to the company losing a contract. The woman conducting it stated that through research it was determined that in high percentage of the time HR departments and hiring managers will not continue reading a resume past the top third of the front page unless they see some type of match.

ajs1976

and both of those resumes failed my 30 second test and would have ended up in my maybe pile. I like to see a Summary at the top with 3-4 points about things that are relevant to the person and the position they are applying for. Then I scan the rest for experience (company, title, date ranges), certs, education, and skills.

techfiend

I use a functional resume, because I have no experience in the field, and have had much better luck with it then a chronological resume. The examples in this thread are poor hybrid resumes, a true functional resume has very little to no description of work history.

The 3 different recruiter materials I've read suggested functional for people with no experience and hybrid for the experienced. They also point out to put the main points at the top and keep the resume simple and easy to read while avoiding styles. These examples do none of these and are unnecessarily long.

bridgestone

ajs1976 wrote: »

and both of those resumes failed my 30 second test and would have ended up in my maybe pile.

Please read again. Those two resumes were dug up quickly for the benefit of showing the functional part of them. Yes, they are BAD resumes generally.

If you're judging the resumes as a whole, you're missing the point. I only dug them up to demonstrate something. I should not have bothered it seems as people are missing the entire point! So please, ignore these resumes!!!!!!!

srabiee

What you are calling a "functional resume" (I had never heard that term before), I simply refer to as "tailoring your resume to fit a particular job application."

Yes, you should definitely tailor your resume to fit a particular job application.

In other words, each potential employer receives a slightly different version of your resume. This is a very good idea that many industry professionals adhere to.

Those skills/special job requirements don't have to be listed in any particular format, or in any particular section for that matter. Whatever your preference is your preference. You could modify and include them in the professional summary, or in the experience section, or in the skills section, or and combination thereof.

So yes, tailoring your resume to a fit a job requirement is certainly a good idea.

I don't see this as a replacement to a standard resume format, however. I would highly recommend that anyone start with a competent and comprehensive resume listing a professional summary, education, certs, work experience, etc. Then once you have your "reference" resume, you can modify and tailor that for each job you apply for.

I don't use a skills section on my resume, so I would personally either incorporate some of those skills in my professional summary or in my work experience (if applicable), while maintaining the same resume format and flow.

That is my advice.

ajs1976

@bridgestone - I'm not going to reread them. I understand the point you are making but unfortunately you posted bad examples. the problem some resumes have , no matter the format, is that they present to much information and the reader moves onto the next resume without viewing the relevant information. People are making adjustments to help with how others are filtering resumes. The summary is replacing the objective and some are including a list of technical skills. Your third post is good. Techfiend mentioned a hybrid format which I think it a good approach. Experience is king in the IT field, but with the tendency of it people to move between jobs, it gets crowded quickly. My resume includes a header, summary, technical skills, experience, education and certifications.

techfiend - I agree with what you have found from the recruiters material. Typically I only see functional resumes recommended for career changers or recent grads. If I would see one from someone with relevant experience, I would wonder if they knew how to write a resume or if they are trying to hide something.

bridgestone

srabiee wrote: »

What you are calling a "functional resume" (I had never heard that term before), I simply refer to as "tailoring your resume to fit a particular job application."

Yes, you should definitely tailor your resume to fit a particular job application.

No, I am not talking about tailoring your resume. I agree that is an excellent idea though.

techfiend is right on the money when he talks about the hybrid resume.

So it goes something like this:

- start with a professional summary (note that in some countries this is totally against the norm so consider it optional)

- functional summary (think of it as a table of skills)

- traditional, reverse chronological listing of work experience. Choice here of listing skills only, achievements only (would avoid duplication) or some combination of the two.




This is a slightly better example, scroll down to page 2 to the skills matrix: http://www.cyberzink.com/mmcnabResume2010.pdf
Don't judge the entire resume, for example I disagree with the work experience summary on page one.

Here's a very simple example. Look only at "summary of technical skills":
http://www.robime.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Sample_CV_02_DWH_EN.pdf
I like the way it's sub-divided into OS, languages, DBs etc.

This one appears to have two sections: Experience and Skills. Not sure I'd do it that way myself but it seems to work well for someone with his wealth of experience: http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/misc/scottchurch-resume-web.pdf

This one has a nice table structure, although I think he goes overboard with cramming so many things into it:
http://www.cdre.com/resume/virt/JohnMoylesResume.pdf


The long and short of all this is that a resume is a very inefficient format. It tells a story with too much information for a recruiter (be it HR or a hiring manager) to digest in too little time.

How many times have we seen people in the interview literally reading your resume for pretty much the first time? Often this happens when an agency arranges an interview. How many times have we seen that someone misses something obvious on your resume (sometimes to your advantage) and you have to almost interject to emphasize something they would otherwise have missed.


If the functional/skills summary is kept brief and concise and to the point, then I think it can only help. A resume is designed to sell and nobody has time to get to know a resume like the author already does. They want the salient facts immediately.

broli720

I would strongly urge you not to go this route. I just gives off the appearance that you're overcompensating. Tailor your resume to each position that you're applying for and keep a generic one on hand.

And as always, keep it down to one page. If they ask for more detail then have your C/V ready.

techfiend

I think it really depends on how long HR/recruiter will be looking at it. I can understand why recruiters would always prefer a functional or hybrid (aka chrono-functional), they regularly spend just a minute looking at each resume. Entry and mid level IT jobs in a large city are probably the same. If it's a high level position or a position where there isn't many resumes sent then your resume reading like a book from bottom-to-top in chronological order probably has advantages over a hybrid. Just make sure it flows well and easy to read.

A true functional resume for a person with any experience is horrible because they hide your biggest asset, experience.